The Ester Valley Road is still blocked by a locked gate at the entrance. The strategy of Largent is to delay, delay, then file more paper, and make it as costly as possible. He has filed 12 motions, including three requests for summary judgment (failure to join the state and borough as indispensable parties, federal preemption, and a ruling of law). No matter how frivolous these motions are, we must give a strong and detailed response. This is getting expensive, but I believe we will be successful with the Ester Valley access, as we were with the Eva Creek Trail. As of 11 March, my costs:

A short recap. This email is going out to 134 individuals and 13 local user groups. We have received funding from 39 sources, averaging $556 each. So far the largest donation is over $4,400 from a local trail organization. For the record, my wife and I have contributed $4,000. Beyond this contribution and my time in litigation, we are personally financially responsible.

Obviously, with litigation, there are no guaranteed outcomes, but I feel we have a good position; and if we don’t act, we are setting a precedent and are guaranteed to lose access to these trails. The bottom line: I’ve lived in Ester for over 30 years. Like many of you, the quality of life here, including its close proximity to trails, is important to me. Now, looking back, a $1,000 donation works out to $33/year… a reasonable amount to ensure access is maintained to this resource we all enjoy. If you’ve already donated, then stand aside for now… if you haven’t, then now would be a good time to reach for your wallet.

Remember, this is a multi-use, multi-season trail/road providing critical access to public lands further west in Ester Valley and Ester Dome. The Ester Valley Trail/Road has existed since 1906, prior to any mining patents being granted, thus establishing a R.S. 2477 designation (R.S. 2477 status creates a right-of-way before the land was private). In addition, there has been open and continuous use by the public since the 1960’s, thus creating a prescriptive easement (AS 09.45.052 (d)). There are also right-of-way easements in recorded warranty deeds. These are right-of-ways, granting public access, that are dominant over the landowner. The Largents, by blocking access, are in effect trying to privatize a public resource. As a side note, the Largents in 2006 assured me that they realized that the road was a public right-of-way. If you have any questions, want more information, or would like to see a copy of our Opposition to their requests for Summary Judgment, drop me an email.

Your donations have gone a long way in preserving access rights for future generations; I greatly appreciate your financial support in this effort. Send donations payable to Law Offices William Satterberg, 709 4th Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99701-4416. Write fbo Ester Trails Defense on the “memo” line and cc me so I can track the funding (p.s. They take credit/debit cards, unfortunately, no PayPal.).

I responded to the numerous errors and omissions with the email and attachments below. It appears that by its passive stance, the borough is condoning the privatization of this public access.

A short recap. This email is going out to over 190 individuals and 13 local user groups. We have received funding from 51 sources, averaging $970 each. For the record, my wife and I have contributed $28,000.

With all due respect to Mayor Hopkins and his staff, during the FNSB
Work Session held 7 August, discussions regarding right-of-way and
access in the Ester Valley (of which I'm a plaintiff in litigation),
contained some errors and omissions.

First, this is not a trail issue, it is a right-of-way access issue.
The term trail is misleading; it is actually a doubletrack mining road
that sees year round use by the public to access state and borough lands
to the west. References to the FNSB Comprehensive Recreational Trail
Plan are completely irrelevant.

Second, we are only asking for access across the Largent's property.
From point A to point B, 24/7, which has been the traditional case
since 1903. No alternate route has been proposed by the Largents. They
have suggested a route which is already in existence, not on their
property, unsuited to many of the activities performed via the current
route in the past, and a diversion which is at least an hours walking
distance from the current access point.

Third, the Largents have repeatedly refused requests for access by the
general public. Free passage is not allowed, they have charged me with
criminal trespass.

Fourth, these are easements, granting public access, that the landowner
cannot interfere with. The Largents, by blocking access, are in effect
trying to privatize a public resource without going through a public
process. It could also be argued that these actions place them in trespass.